Reboots - the good, the bad, and the ugly

KrangPrime

Master Member
what reboots did you like? what do you think they got right?
What reboots do you hate? what do you think they got wrong?

for me...the ONLY reboot I think got everything damn near perfect was the 4Kids TMNT reboot. done by Peter Laird, and a staff that truly loved TMNT..and it showed. about the only problem I had with it is Kara. she REFUSED to choose a side. ally with the TMNT, or stick with Ch'rell. it made her rather annoying, but I still liked the character and thought it was awesome when she took up the mantle of Shredder. a female shredder works when done right.

Oh, and He-Man 2002. A show I wanted more out of....but cartoon network killed.

The stuff I have problems with.
Knight Rider:
A show that didn't know what it wanted to be. it ignored the classic theme song that veered into something a bit more suited for californias bay watch. it had a cop with a sub plot that got dropped in the pilot. it had a lady lead who wasn't a tech like bonnie iirc, and nowhere near as interesting. same goes for the new Devon..completely boring. the show seemed to have a soft reboot in the premier. with characters dropped and new ones added that you don't care about. they turned karr into a transformer, but at least they got the original voice back. there was no history with the old show connecting things together, so missed nostalgia factor. just like most reboots, this one didn't know what it wanted to be.

Thundercats 2011 -
I am torn on this show. I like the cast, even if lion o sounds like batman too me (cause he is and the guy only does one voice). They got some things right (Berbils, slythe...) but many more things wrong. They kept the Thundercats on Earth because of the no technology sub plot. I actually kind of liked the no technology plot. but the Thundercats where never really shown to get better at it. they just kind of had it handed too them. Then they kind of retconned it midway through the series, showing them as a space faring race working for mumm-ra, complete with Feliners. A stupid love triangle between tygra and lion o and cheetara. when in the original series, it was hinted that cheetara and lion-o might hook up once. They turned tygra from a thinker who's not very confident in some areas, to a brash fighter with a laser pistol. I like that they introduced Vultureman as a king of his race, of sorts. in the original series, he just kind of appeared. They got Mumm-Ra the most wrong though. they made him weaker and far less cooler by making him reliant on technology and giving him wings to fly. he doesn't even use or need magic anymore and they could have easily made him an alien. Also, the sword of omens. this series used the 'make them wait for it' angle, where the original series explained everything in the first episode. as a kid, I never got tired of it. in the new series, I wanted to know 'when are they going to explain what the sword does?' 'does it have the same powers?' 'why are the fights with mumm-ra so boring?' 'where is cheetara's super speed?'

It looks like thought and care went into this series, after dozens of failed attempts (third earth rock band where humans turn into the thundercats via the sword of omens) but they seemed afraid to touch on the more mythical aspects and fun aspects of the series....and tried to be too serious to boot. They also made the thundercats out to be jerks, except Lion-O. i didn't feel sorry for them when their city got destroyed. why is it so bad to have all the characters be gung ho good to the point of cheezy? seeing the thundercats stick up for everyone in the original series no matter the problem was heartwarming.


so, what do you think reboots of the past got right? what did they get wrong?
 
Last edited:
As bad an idea as I thought it was beforehand, I was really impressed with the remake of True Grit. I won't go as far as saying that Jeff Bridges was better than John Wayne, but IMO Bridges had better costars.
 
"True Grit" was excellent, but as good as Hailee Steinfeld was in that film, I prefer Kim Darby's tomboy.

The only reboot I have strong feelings about is NuTrek. I wish it had never happened. It makes me angry.
 
I have to agree. Give me the original True Grit. I thought the remake was AWFUL!!. Both Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon are great actors, but in this they were terrible. Since the script is almost word for word, it's like they tried so hard to not use the same inflections made by Wayne and company giving their lines, all of it seems way forced to me.
 
True Grit the original and the reboot both have something special to offer. I don't think they can nor should be compared. The Duke's unforgettable presence and performance - especially with Kim Darby are the core of the original. It's an overtly sharp character study.

The reboot also has solid performances but it's an entirely different kind of movie. Bridges doesn't have the bravado of The Duke but his Cogburn is a hard, weathered and tired soul who communicates an incredibly deep unspoken affection for the girl. It's a powerful and unforgettable film in its own right - a much subtler take on the subject.





That aside I think the absolute best reboots are reboots of B-films. There's no better example than John Carpenter's The Thing.
 
dascoyne There were 2 movies I thought of, The Thing, and the new Robocop. Im very passionate about the original (its the movie that made me want to get into spfx) so the new one was a big letdown for me. Some of it was cool, but overall, I dont think it added anything to the character or the mythos.

Going the cartoon route, I really liked the new He Man series from 2002 I believe? That was pretty cool. Going the horror route, I really liked the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre reboot, I thought it was way better than the original. The first one the girl is screaming SO MUCH it was hard to watch, and there was a lot of boring stuff in the beginning, but I can see how it scared the socks off people in the 70's though. It still has some scary parts, but overall I liked the reboot better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@dascoyne There were 2 movies I thought of, The Thing, and the new Robocop. Im very passionate about the original (its the movie that made me want to get into spfx) so the new one was a big letdown for me. Some of it was cool, but overall, I dont think it added anything to the character or the mythos.
I think you might have misunderstood. I meant John Carpenter's The Thing as a remake of the 1951 B-film. I wasn't referring to the forgettable 2011 film at all.

I haven't seen the new Robocop but I hear it's an ok movie. I saw the original Verhoven film at a college test screening prior to its release. The poster looked cheesy but I walked out of the theater completely blown away knowing that I just saw an instant classic. I think the 1987 is a near-perfect film. I really have no desire to see the remake but if it's showing for free on TV I might take a look.
 
John Carter was better than the original Princess of Mars. Better acting, better effects and better ending. As for Robocop its not a patch on the original. He is way way to human and I dont like the suit. When the helmet retracts he looks like one of those god awful teddy bears with the dolls face instead of a bear. Just looks totally wrong, moves wrong..... is wrong.
 
I think you might have misunderstood. I meant John Carpenter's The Thing as a remake of the 1951 B-film. I wasn't referring to the forgettable 2011 film at all.

I haven't seen the new Robocop but I hear it's an ok movie. I saw the original Verhoven film at a college test screening prior to its release. The poster looked cheesy but I walked out of the theater completely blown away knowing that I just saw an instant classic. I think the 1987 is a near-perfect film. I really have no desire to see the remake but if it's showing for free on TV I might take a look.

I knew what you were referring too, I was the one that wasnt clear haha. I love John Carpenters The Thing. Its one of my favorite movies. Rob Bottin, who did the effects for The Thing also designed and did the effects for Robocop!

Dont even bother with the new one man. Its so forgettable and one note. Its not bad, but its not good either. Some of the choices I was like "huh"? I couldnt agree more. Near perfect indeed. :cheers
 
If you're lucky enough to have missed the new Robocop I'd keep it that way. Its dire.

But the worst reboot for me was new Karate Kid, they messed up everything. To the point where the kid was even learning Kung Fu!! It physically hurt me watching that film.

Reboots I enjoyed would be Netflix Daredevil and Nolan Batman. The new Planet of the Apes movies were good updates too, didn't care for Marky Mark's version.


A reboot I would really like to see would be The Crow (rumoured for years). The original was great and the sequels killed it one step at a time, so a reboot wouldn't really be stepping on anything.
 
If you're lucky enough to have missed the new Robocop I'd keep it that way. Its dire.

But the worst reboot for me was new Karate Kid, they messed up everything. To the point where the kid was even learning Kung Fu!! It physically hurt me watching that film.

Reboots I enjoyed would be Netflix Daredevil and Nolan Batman. The new Planet of the Apes movies were good updates too, didn't care for Marky Mark's version.


A reboot I would really like to see would be The Crow (rumoured for years). The original was great and the sequels killed it one step at a time, so a reboot wouldn't really be stepping on anything.

+1 on the new planet of the apes!
 
The new Planet of the Apes is tolerable in that it's semi-trying to stay in cannon and not be a total reboot. Every other reboot has been garbage and always will be. Now they're wiping their butts with the Magnificent Seven. Next thing you know they'll go after more Wayne westerns, True Gritt i don't count as it went closer to the source material so it was a different creature, and in that case they should just go pee on the Duke's grave as a final insult.
 
fig,gold,mens,ffffff.jpg
 
I don't think the Coen's True Grit can be considered a remake of Henry Hathaway's film. I think it's more accurate to say the Coen Bros. just did their version of the book. I mean, the two films are only similar in that it follows the story from the same book. That said, I think the Coen Bros. did a more authentic interpretation of the original source material then the first time with John Wayne. Westerns then were still romanticized and I think that hindered the Hathaway film, even then, because the atmosphere of the film was so different from the tone of the story and the nature of the dialogue. I think you can guess that I prefer the Coen Bros. version far more.
 
I think people who get too tied up with this are funny-I have a take it or leave attitude and if it's good,it's good,if it's bad I ignore it.

I've liked the "nu-Trek",Robocop wasn't bad,The Thing...well that one's been redone three times now.

Batman doesn't count,all DC knows to do is make either Batman or Superman films so far and if any of the new stuff they have planned works I'll be amazed,if it doesn't expect a new Batman around 2025 or so.
 
About the KR "reboot", it was meant to be a continuation as well (Michael Knight, played by Hasselhoff himself turns up in the final scene of the pilot, as well as we see the remains of KITT from the original show in the opening scene in the garage). Now, I do agree, the show had its weak spots, and I feel that if it had been given a second season, it would have fixed all of them. By the way it looked towards the end, it was going to get back to what the original was: with the Foundation helping out the innocent and helpless against criminals who operated above the law (in fact, I kinda imagine that they would have brought Michael Knight back to become the Devon Miles of the group, and maybe even have The original KITT apparently still functioning and used for other things other than riding around and fighting crime). Honestly, if they had just gotten to that much sooner, or just had FLAG since the start of the series, maybe it would have been better.
 
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top